iStockphoto announced yesterday that they would begin selling logos on their site, in addition to their popular, cheap stock photography.
The logos will sell for 100-750 credits, and each logo can be sold only once. Designers will initially receive 50% royalty, with this policy to change after six months. Credits range from $0.95 to $1.50 depending on how many you buy at a time… meaning logos can cost as little as $95 and max out at $1,125 (although the max price is based on the inefficient purchase of 12 credits at a time until you have 750+ credits, so real world situations won’t go over $1,000).
To get great photography, we hire great photographers to create specific images for us, and logo design is no different. But now, like stock photography, stock logos are becoming mainstream. The consumer attitude of “good enough” is spreading like wildfire.
iStockphoto (owned by Getty images) is in business to make money. Period. So it’s difficult to blame them. Sure, it’s unethical (this can be argued for stock photography as well), but really, they exist to make money, just like the tons of other crowdsourcing logo sites on the web. So where does the blame fall for this new trend?
These sites rely on a number of designers to submit work with no guarantee of pay. Designers seemingly line up around the block at the chance of being paid less than market value for their generic-one-logo-fits-all design. I blame these designers for allowing themselves to be taken advantage of, and lowering the perception of our field to millions of potential customers. Sure, this client perspective won’t hurt Pentagram or Landor, but your average neighborhood designer may see some wallet-crunching by their mom & pop shop clients.
When it comes to crowdsourcing, the responsibility falls solely on designers to stand up and say NO. As long as there are thousands of designers submitting to these sites, they will continue to thrive. I personally vow to not take part in a practice that undervalues our industry by allowing ourselves to be taken advantage of as style-whores… and I encourage/challenge you to stand up, have a backbone, and do the same.
It’s simple. Crowdsourcing can’t thrive if there’s no crowd to source.
Let iStockphoto know that we don’t appreciate this through the forum they made this announcement here.
Sara Blake
AIGA Kent Presents: Paul Sahre
Milton Glaser is LiveChatting NOW
For the Designer in your life
THANK YOU. JUST SAY NO!
Love the Nike image also. The sad part is, that iconic shape, people would not be willing to spend $10 on if they saw it on a crowdsourced website next to gradated, flashy, overly designed logos for the same price.
Clients hire you for you judgment as well as your skill. Creating a marketplace to pick logos eliminates the judgment portion of the designers roll in creating a logo for someone.
This topic needs a Draplin-like, “Why we are Fvcked” response
10:14 am
The Draplin video:
http://www.thedonutproject.com/2009/03/09/america_is_f-ed/
10:19 am
This is crap. Most people on the forum love the idea too! How can any self-respecting designer be ok with stuff like this?
10:26 am
I thought Getty/iStock had more respect for the process of creating a unique identity. Guess I was wrong.
istock is turning into the wal-mart of the creative world…one stop and you can get everything you need. Is that really a good thing?
11:04 am
istock=walmart >> agreed.
11:31 am
Stock imagery has been killing this field for a long time. I fear that good custom design will go the way of good custom illustration and artwork.
Using the excuse of “we’re in business to make money” is to blame for this nonsense. If you are in this industry your responsibility is to promote and contribute to the field, not destroy it with this uber-capitalist rhetoric and these unethical business practices. Look at insurance companies, we’ve heard that their responsibility is to the stockholders for how many years and what has it done? Kill the industry.
11:32 am
I agree. I’m getting requests to do all kinds of sub-standard work. Just because you can create a video with letters flying at you doesn’t mean you should. It’s hard to be in this business when you consider yourself an artist.
1:38 pm
Damn right Stephen. Designers who help iStockphoto are like doomed cattle who help the workers at the slaughterhouse. It’s bad enough that most of our job – even when it’s going well – is in the eduction of clients about what is fair and right and what to expect from a job. What happens to managing expectations when outlets like iStockphoto go off like over-promising account people and tell clients, even without really telling them, that it’s fine to break the rules and devalue others’ work?
10:36 pm
Keep in mind Getty Images owns iStock. If we’re going to boycott might as well boycott them both ;)
5:00 am
if you ever need a logo just go to brandsoftheworld.com. they’re free illustrator files! we use this site alot in the interior biz.
5:56 pm
We are going to see a lot of difference in the logo industry. Old logos like Apple, Ford, Coke, Nike, Puma and other extremely simple yet extremely efficient logos will be hard to get.
My point, in few years, the “fashion” of getting a pre-ready logo will die (if it catches on). The bigger and more respected clients will ask for well designed simple logos that fits the clients need and “behaviour” of branch for ever, and the smaller industrial capitalist moneymaking cunts will follow, one day.
10:35 pm
Big fat hairy AMEN to this post!
I refuse to be a tooler: http://snipurl.com/toolers
4:51 pm
I definately agree with the post and hate the fact that istock is going this route. It definately hurts the business but so does elance.
To play the opposing side regarding photography though, a creative group/agency doesnt always have the liberty of signing on a photographer to do a custom shoot. Really depends on the situation and unfortunately, client budget. If we need a specific stylized shot, ok but what if client simply needs an image of an apple or a dog or something a bit more generic? By the time the photographer works in his time, this can multiply the cost of the job substantially. Which means we have to then turn that cost over to client. Which then may mean having the client looking for photos himself, i.e. istockphoto.
6:45 pm
How to F*k the Design World 101
It clearly shows peoples mind state – that all designers are a dime a dozen
3:01 pm